# No. 04-14-00741-CV

T HE C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F OURTH D ISTRICT OF T EXAS

*****************
D EIDRE E LANE S CHAMP

V
E DWARD M ITCHELL

***************** F ROM THE 57 J UDICIAL D ISTRICT C OURT OF B EXAR C OUNTY , T EXAS TH T HE H ONORABLE J UDGE S OLOMON C ASSEB , III P RESIDING 

# APPELLANT’S BRIEF

Julie L. Krenek State Bar No. 24065574 LAW OFFICE OF JULIE KRENEK PLLC 6814 Lebanon Road, Suite 101 Frisco, Texas 75034 Tel: (214) 675-4436 Fax: (214)842-6674 julie@dfwfamilylaw.net Attorney for Appellant, Deidre Elane Schamp

O RAL A RGUMENT N OT R EQUESTED ACCEPTED 04-14-00741-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 1/5/2015 11:08:18 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERKIDE NTI TY OF PARTIE S AND COUNSEL

Deid re Ela ne Sch am

p, Ap pe ll an t Ju li e L. Kren ek St at e Bar No. 2 40 65 57 4 Att or ne y for App el la nt Law Offic e o f Ju li e L Kren ek , PLLC 68 14 Leba no n S ui te 10 1 Fri sc o, Tex as 75 03 4 Tel: 21 4.6 75 .44 36 Fax : 2 14 .84 2.6 67 4 jul ie @d fwfam il y la w.net

Edwar d M it ch el l, Ap pe ll ee Jo n Di sr ud St at e Bar No. 0 07 88 94 1 Att or ne y for App el le e Law Offic es of J on R. Dis ru d 13 75 0 S an Ped ro Ave., Su it e 4 10 San Ant on io , Texa s 7 82 32 Tel: 21 0.4 94 .66 33 Fax : 2 10 .49 4.6 64 0 jon @jd is ru dl aw.co m

A PPE L L A

NT BRIE F - SCHA MP iTa bl e o f Con tent s

1. Id en ti ty of th e Par ti es an d C ou ns el

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
2. In de x o f Aut ho rit ie s..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii i
3. St at em en t o f th e Cas e..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
4. Is su es Pres en te d..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
5. St at em en t o f th e Fac ts

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
6. Su m

m ary of Argu m en t. .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
7. Arg um en t an d Au th or it ie s..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A. Is su e 1

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B. Is su e 2

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Rel ie f Req ue st ed

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Cert ifi cat e o f Serv ic e..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

A PPE L L A

NT BRIE F - SCHEMP iiIn dex of Aut ho ri tie s

Cas es : Alexander v Lynda’s Boutique , 134 S.W .3d 845, 848 (Tex. 2004)..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Furst v Smith , 176 S.W .3d 864, 868 (Tex. App.–Houston [ 1 . Dist.] 2005, no pet.)..

. . . . 6 s t Ins. Co. Of State of Penn.v Lejeune , 297 S.W .3d 254, 255 (Tex. 2009)..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Lawyers Lloyds of Tex. v W ebb , 152 S.W .2d 1096 (Tex. 1941)..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Norman Communications v Tex. Eastman Co. , 955 S.W .2d 269, 270 (Tex. 1997)..

. . . . . 6 Pike-Grant v Grant , __ S.W .3d __, 2014 W L 4933010, 13-0277 (Tex. 2014)..

. . . . . . . . 5 Primate Constr., Inc. v Silver , 884 S.W .2d 151, 152 (Tex. 1994)..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7 Quaestor Invs., Inc.v Chiapas , 997 S.W .2d 226, 227 (Tex. 1999)..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Stubbs v Stubbs , 685 S.W .2d 643, 644-45 (Tex. 1985) ..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Travieso v Travieso , 649 S.W .2d 818, 820 (Tex. App. –San Antonio 1983, no writ)..

. . . 7

Rule s: Tex. R. App. P. 26.1c..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Tex. R. App. P. 30...

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Tex. R. Civ. P. 107..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,7

Reco rds :
Clerk’s Record..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,2,4,5,

A PPPE L L A

NT BRIE F - SCHEMP iii

### STATE MENT OF THE CASE

Thi s is a r e s t r i ct ed ap pe al fro m a de fau lt jud gm en t ta ke n by App el le e. The

pa rti es , Deid re Elan e Sch am p, App el l a n t , a nd Edwar d Mi tc he ll , App el le e, were

or ig in al ly di vo rced on Ja nu ary 22 , 20 13

. Su bs eq ue nt ly, on Decem be r 20 , 20 13 App el le e fil ed a Peti ti on fo r Enf or cemen t of Pro

pe rt y Divi si on
. (C.R. at 4.) Ci ta ti on

was is su ed by th e cl erk on Decem be r 20 , 20 13

. (C.R. at 13 .) A tri al was se t fo r Apr il
14 , 20 14 by at to rn ey fo r App e l l e e
. ( C .R. at 14 .) On May 6, 20 14 an Ord er on Enf or cemen t was si gn ed by th e t r i al co ur t. (C.R. at 9.) On Octo be r 23 , 20 14 a
No ti ce o f Res tr ic te d Ap

pe al was fil ed . (C.R. at 14 .)

IS SUES PRESE NTED 1) W he th er Ap pe ll an t i s en ti tl ed to a res tri ct ed ap pe al

. 2) W he th er App el la nt was pr op erl y se rv ed , gi vi ng th e tri al co ur t juri sd ic ti on ov er Ap pe ll an t.

STATE MENT OF FACTS
On Decem

be r 20 , 20 13 a Mo ti on f

or Enfo rcem en t of Pro pe rty Div is io n was
fil ed

. (C.R. at 4) On th e sa m e da y , th e di st ric t cl erk is su ed ci ta ti on
. ( Id .)A rev ie w of
th e cl erk ’s reco rd refl ect s wha t oc cu rred fro m th e fil in g of th e or ig in al m ot io n fo r

A PPE L L A

NT BRIE F - SCHEMP Pag e 1en fo rcem en t t o t he fil in g o f th e n ot ic e o f ap pe al

.

The do ck et sh eet refl ect s in th e “ se rv ic es in fo rm at io n” se ct io n th at ci ta ti on was
is su ed on Decem

be r 20 , 20 13

. (C.R. at 13 .) The ne xt en try sta te s a n ot ic e o f or de r
pu r s u a n t t o Ru le 30 6A was se nt on ly to App el le e’s at to rn ey of reco rd on May 19 , 20 14

. ( Id .) Des pi te a ci ta ti on be in g is su ed , th ere is no ret ur n of se rv ic e on fil e in th e

reco rd . (See e nt ire cle rk ’s reco rd .)
The do ck et sh eet fu rth er refl ect s in th e “ pr oc eed in gs in fo rm at io n” se ct io n th e
fil in g of the pe ti ti on on Decem be r 20 , 20 13

. (

Id .) The ne xt an d fin al en try, pr io r to
th e no ti ce of ap pe al , is on May 6, 20 14 whi ch st at es “ cas e cl os ed fin al jud aft er no ”. ( Id at 1 4.) Th ere i s n o e nt ry for a fi na l t ria l o n Ap ril 14 , 20 14

. The re is no reco rd of an act ua l tri al be in g he ld

. Th ere is no co ur t rep or te r

reco rd fo r th e pu rp or te d tri al he ld on Apr il 14 , 20 14

. The cl erk ’s reco rd , whi le li st in g
th e sc he du le d t r i a l , h a s no no ta ti on s of a tri al be in g he ld , o r who was pr es en t. The
O r d e r on Enf

or cemen t st at es th at App el le e’s at to rn ey ap pe ared , bu t no t App el le e
. (C.R. at 7.) The Ord er of Enf or cemen t in co rrec tl y cl ai m s th at App e l l a n t ap pe ared
fo r th e tr ia l an d a nn ou nc ed read y . (C.R. at 7.)
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT App el la nt ha s m et th e req ui rem en ts an d is en ti tl ed to a res tri ct ed ap pe al

. Fu rth er, be cau se App el la nt was ne ve r se rv ed wit h ci ta ti on , de sp it e th e reci ta ti on s in

A PPE L L A

NT BRIE F - SCHEMP Pag e 2th e fin al or de r, th e tri al co ur t ne ve r ha d juri sd ic ti on ov er App el la nt an d th e jud gm en t

is vo id

.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORI TI ES
Is su e No. 1 :
W he th er Ap pe ll an t i s en ti tl ed to a res tri ct ed ap pe al

. To su cces sf

ul ly at ta ck a jud gm en t by res tri ct ed ap pe al , th e fo l l o w in g

m us t b e m et :
1. App el la nt m

us t b e a p art y

to th e cas e;
2. The res tri ct ed ap pe al m us t be fil ed wit hi n si x m on th s fro m th e da te th e
fin al jud gm en t was si gn ed ;
3. App el la nt m

us t no t ha ve pa rti ci pa te d in th e tri al or he ari ng th at res ul te d
in th e fi na l ju dg m en t, n or ha ve fil ed an y ti m el y po st jud gm en t m ot io ns ; an d
4. Erro r m

us t b e ap pa ren t o n t he face of t he reco rd

. Qua es to r In vs ., In c. V Ch ia pa s , 99 7 S.W .2d 22 6 , 2 2 7 ( Te x. 19 99 ). Se e al so
In s. Co

. Of St at e of Pen n. V Lej eu ne , 29 7 S. W. 3 d 2 5 4 , 2 55 5 (Tex

. 20 09 ) (ci ti ng
Alex an d e r v Lyn da ’s Bou ti qu e , 13 4 S.W .3d 84 5, 84 8 (Tex

. 20 04 ); Tex

. R. App

. P.
26 .1c an d T.R.A.P. 3 0. App el la nt was th e Res po nd en t in th e cas e an d th eref or e m eet s th e fir st

A PPE L L A

NT BRIE F - SCHEMP Pag e 3req ui rem en t.

The fin al jud gm en t was si gn ed by t he tri al co ur t on May 6 , 2 01 4 ( C

. R

. a t 9.)
Th e no ti ce of ap pe al was fil ed on Octo be r 23 , 20 14 , le ss th an si x m on th s fro m t h e
da te of th e fin al jud gm en t. (C.R. at 11 ). The refo re , A p p e ll an t m eet s th e se co nd

req ui rem en t. App el la nt ’s co nf

or m it y wit h th e th ird req ui rem en t, th at App el la nt m us t no t
ha ve pa rti ci pa te d in th e tri al th at res ul te d in th e jud gm en t, or ti m el y fil ed an y p o s t

tri al m ot io ns , has be en m et , bu t i s a l it tl e m or e co m pl ic at ed to asc ert ai n.
It is cl ear fro m th e cl erk ’s r e c o rd th at App el la nt di d no t fil e an y ti m el y po st
tri al m ot io ns
. The cl erk ’s reco rd do es sh ow th at a tri al was se t fo r Apr il 14 , 20 14 by

at to rn ey fo r App el le e. (C.R. at 14 ) Howev er, un de r th e “ tri al in fo rm at io n” se ct io n in
th e cl erk ’s reco rd , th ere is no reco rd of a tri al oc cu rri ng no r if an y on e ap pe ared

. ( Id .)
The Ord er on Enf

or cemen t si gn ed by th e Co ur t st at es in it ’s reci ta ls th at at to rn ey fo r App el le e ap pe ared , bu t no t App el le e. (C.R. at 7.) The re is no co ur t rep or te r reco rd

. The Ord er on Enf

or cemen t do es st at e th at App el la nt ap pe ared an d an no un ced
read y fo r tri al

. Thi s is erro ne ou s. Alt ho ug h th is Co ur t no rm al ly pr es um es th e reci ta ls
in th e jud gm en t to be tru e, we m us t lo ok at th e en ti re reco rd

. A rev ie w of th e en ti re

reco rd do es no t su pp or t th e reci ta ls in th e si gn ed or de r. The re is no ev id e n c e th at App el la nt was ev er se rv ed

. The re is no ev id en ce in th e cl erk ’s reco rd s th at App el la nt

A PPE L L A

NT BRIE F - SCHEMP Pag e 4ev er ap pe ared on Apr il 14 fo r a tri al , or th at a tri al was ev en he ld

. The cl erk ’s reco rd th

on ly refl ect s th at at to rn ey fo r App el le e sc he du le d a tri al fo r Apr il 14

. (C.R. at 14 .) th App el le e’s own or de r refl ect s App el le e di d no t ap pe ar. Fu rth er, th ere is no reco rd in
th e cl erk ’s reco rd of th e fin al or de r be in g se nt to an y on e be si de s at to rn ey fo r App el le e

as req ui red by Rul e 3 06 a.
W he th er or not a pa rty se ek in g a res tri ct ed ap pe al pa rti ci pa te d in th e un de rlyin g

su it sh ou ld be co ns tru ed li be ral ly in fav or of th e rig ht to ap pe al

. St ub bs v St ub bs , 68 5
S.W .2d 64 3, 64 4- 45 (Tex

. 19 85 ) (ci ti ng La wye rs Ll oy ds of Tex. v W eb b , 15 2 S.W .2d
10 96 (Tex . 19 41 ). The Tex as Su pr em e Co ur t as rece nt ly as Oct ob er 2 01 4 re ve rs ed
th is Co ur t’s op in io n in Pike -Gra nt , whe rei n th e Res po nd en t in th at cas e al so su ffer ed
fro m in co rrec t reci ta ti on s on th e face of th e ju d g em en t. Pike -Gra nt v Gra nt ,

__ __ __ __ __ __ S.W .3d

__

__ , 20 14 W L 49 33 01 0, 13 -0 27 7 (Tex

. 20 14 ) (1 0- 3- 14 ). In
Pike -Gra nt th e fin al jud gm en t ha d se ve ral in co rrec t reci ta ti on s in th e jud gm en t,
in cl ud in g th at App el la nt ha d ap pe ared fo r tri al , an d co nf li ct in g tri al da te s. In th e cas e
ha nd , th e fin al jud gm en t al so in co rrec tl y refl ect s th at App el la nt ap pe ared fo r tri al

. It fur th er in co rrec tl y st at es th at al l pa rti es en ti tl ed to ci ta ti on were ci te d. The Tex as
Su pr em e Co ur t fou nd th at al th ou gh th e jud gm en t in di cat ed a he ari ng ha d bee n hel d

an d th at App el la nt ha d be en pr es en t at th e he ari ng , no t h i ng in th e co ur t’s reco rd

su pp or te d t ha t re ci ta ti on . The s am e is tru e in th e cas e at ha nd

.

A PPE L L A

NT BRIE F - SCHEMP Pag e 5The fo ur th el em en t is th at th e erro r m us t ap pe ar on th e face of th e reco rd

. The
face of th e reco rd co ns is ts of al l th e pa pe rs on fil e in th e ap p e a l

. No rma n
Co mmun ic at io ns v Tex. Eas tma n Co

. , 95 5 S.W .2d 26 9, 27 0 (Tex

. 19 97 ). In th is cas e,
th e face of th e reco rd do es no t co nt ai n an y pr oo f of pr op er se rv ic e on App el la nt , sa ve

an d e xc ep t fo r th e err on eo us reci ta ls in th e fi na l o rd er.
Is su e 2 :
W he th er Ap pe ll an t was pro pe rly serv ed

. The re i s no pr es um

pt io n in fav or of pr op er is su an ce, se rv ic e, an d ret ur n of
ci ta ti on
. Pri mat e Co ns tr ., In c. v Si lv er , 88 4 S.W .2d 15 1, 15 2 (Tex

. 19 94 ). The Tex as
Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc ed ur e Ru le 10 7 s ta te in rel ev an t p art :

“ Ret ur n of Serv ic e: h) no de fau lt jud gm en t sh al l be gr an te d in an y cau se un ti l

pr oo f of se rv ic e as pr ov id ed by th is ru le or by Ru le s 10 8 or 10 8a or as or de red by th e co ur t in th e ev en t ci ta ti on is ex ecu te d by a n a l t e r na ti ve m et ho d un de r
Ru le 10 6, sh al l ha ve be en on fil e wit h th e cl erk of th e co ur t te n da y s, ex cl us iv e
of th e d ay of f il in g a nd th e d ay

of ju dg m en t.”
W he n a de fen da nt ha s n o t a n s w ered , a tri al co ur t on ly acq ui res juri sd ic ti on

ov er th e de fen da nt st ric tl y up on pr oo f of pr op er se rv ic e. Fur st v Smi th , 17 6 S.W .3d
86 4, 86 8 (Tex

. App .–Ho us to n [1

. Dis t.] 20 05 , no pe t.). Thi s Co ur t ha s he ld in s t

Tr av ie so th at if an y o f t h e r e q u ire m en ts of Tex

. R. of Ci v. P. 10 7 are no t m et , th e

A PPE L L A

NT BRIE F - SCHEMP Pag e 6ret ur n is fat al ly de fect iv e an d wil l no t su pp o r t a de fau lt jud gm en t. Tr av ie so v

Tr av ie so , 64 9 S .W .2d 81 8, 8 20 (Tex . App . –Sa n An to ni o 1 98 3, n o wri t).
In Pri mat e th e Tex as Su pr em e Co ur t di sc us se s th e weig ht gi ve n to th e ret ur n
of ci ta ti on
. Pri mat e Co ns tr ., In c. v Si lv er , 88 4 S.W .2d 15 1, 15 2 (Tex

. 19 94 ). The
Co ur t st at ed th at “ It is th e res po ns ib il it y of th e on e req ue st in g se rv ic e, no t th e pr oc es s

se rv er, to se e th at se rv ic e is pr op erl y acco mp li sh ed ...This res po ns ib il it y ex te nd s to

se ei ng th at se r v i c e is pr op erl y refl ect ed in th e reco rd .” Id at 15 3. In Pri mat e th e
reg is te red ag en t of Pri m at e was se rv ed

. The ret ur n of se rv ic e st at ed th at Pri m at e was

se rv ed an or ig in al p e t i t i on
. Howev er, Pri m at e was no t ad de d as a pa rty un ti l th e

se co nd am en de d pe ti ti on
. Reg ard le ss of th e reci ta ti on in th e jud gm en t, th e of fic er’s

ret ur n th at st at ed Pri m at e was se rv ed wit h or ig in al ci t a t i o n , c i t a ti on of a su it th ey

were no t a na m ed de fen da nt in , mad e an y st at ed se rv ic e on Pri m at e in va li d an d th e
fo ll owi ng de fau lt jud gm en t v oi d.
In su m m ary, th e jud gm en t ag ai ns t App el la nt is vo i d

. App el la nt was ne ve r

se rv ed de sp it e th e rec it at io ns in th e d efau lt jud gm en t. REQUES TED RELI EF
W he refo re, be cau se App el la nt was ne ve r pr op erl y se rv ed , an d sh e ha s m et al l
th e el em en ts of a res tri ct ed ap pe al , App el la nt pr ay s th at th is Co ur t va cat e th e vo id jud gm en t an d re m an d t hi s ca se to th e tr ia l co ur t.

A PPE L L A

NT BRIE F - SCHEMP Pag e 7Res pe ct fu ll y su bm it te d,
Law Offic e o f Ju li e L Kren ek , PLLC 68 14 Leba no n S ui te 10 1 Fri sc o, Tex as 75 03 4 Tel: 21 4.6 75 .44 36 Fax : 2 14 .84 2.6 67 4 jul ie @d fwfam il y la w.net

/s/ Ju li e L Kren ek Ju li e L Kren ek , Att or ne y for App el la nt St at e Bar No. 2 40 65 57 4
Certi fic at e o f Ser vi ce
I he reb y cert ify th at a t ru e an d co rrec t co py of th is br ie f was se rv ed on Jo n
Dis ru d, at to rn ey fo r App el le e, in acco rd an ce wit h th e Tex as Ru le s of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e

on Jan ua ry

5, 2 01 5.
/s / Ju li e L. Kren ek Ju li e L. Kren ek

A PPE L L A

NT BRIE F - SCHEMP Pag e 8